My post on debunking the myths of non-verbal communication has been picked up by a lot of google searches for “percentage non-verbal communication”, “what % of communication is non-verbal” and the like.
For those who haven’t read the original article, have a look and you’ll find that the often quoted figure of 93% is just pure hokum (well, it’s an accurate figure for one very specific example taken repeatedly way out of context).
For those keen to understand what the “real” figures are for the percentage of communication that’s non-verbal – have a think about it for a second.
Really, the question is meaningless.
What does “percentage of communication” actually mean? Do you mean the percentage of the actual message that was heard and understood? Or do you mean the percentage of intended emotion that got through? The concept of a “percentage of communication” is so oversimplified that it ceases to have meaning.
In addition, there are so many different types of communication that it’s impossible to give a single figure or average that has any meaning. Even if you could figure out a “percentage of communication that was non-verbal” it would be so radically different for example, for a lecture on mathematics to an impassioned speech on third-world poverty that to give an overall figure would be misleading.
So here’s my answer anyway:
Q: What percentage of communication is non-verbal?
A: More than most people think, but less than trainers in non-verbal communication would have you believe.
Onward!
Ian
Similar Posts:
- Debunking the myths of non-verbal communication
- Clients, Not Markets
- Linkedin News and Leadership Poll
- How to Market Your Product in Mexico (Even If You Don’t Speak Spanish)
- The Myth of Goal Setting
Great post.
A percentage of communication received makes sense if you’re dealing with something discrete (kilobytes of data, morse code, or a TV picture).
But human communication is so diverse and multifaceted (and composed of both the conscious and unconscious messages, some of which are contradictory) that I think it is impossible to reduce to a number.
Thanks again for your blog.
I agree with Rachel’s comment. I teach in a Communication Studies department and, unfortunately, many faculty members and textbooks repeat these nonsensical percentage claims.
People seem to think it sounds more sciency to say that 93 percent of communication is nonverbal than to say, wow, isn’t nonverbal comm interesting and important?
Agreed John (& Rachel). I feel very uncomforable when I see percentages and statistics quoted without a source – and if I see the source I’ll check it out. It’s shocking just how many times the statistic is being misrepresented – all to make something seem more scientific. And it’s then even more surprising how the misrepresentation can snowball via repetition into something huge like the 93% stat. Mehrabian has spoken many times of this misrepresentation and tried to correct understanding of his findings – but it’s got a life of it’s own now!
Ian
Very true. I tried to find my previous comments (somewhere) on this topic but couldn’t
The whole idea is idiotic. I can set up plenty of experiments and wager large amounts of money that in many cases I can communicate what is needed extremely effectively using just email. And the others can try doing it by gesturing and frowning and smiling all they want (without using any text or words).
I wouldn’t even go so far as to say “More than most people think.” I would say in some communications non-verbal cues are important. In many they are not.
And as you say percentages without operational definitions of how the data was collected are useless (if it is really easy for us to guess correctly at the operation definitions http://curiouscat.com/management/operationaldefinition.cfm then they may be useful, if risky, pieces of data).
John Hunter recently posted..Management Improvement Blog Carnival #162